ON THE DEFINITION OF "DECREE" AND A POSSIBLE SUIT

Dear Apostolic Visitors:

We realize you will not be able to assist us directly in a civil challenge of Archbishop Apuron's assignment of the Yona Property to RMS, but we hope you can convince him to reverse it before this matter becomes a civil suit. 

Here, though, is a concern involving the Church: the use of the term DECREE when in fact there was none.

*****

Attached to Archbishop Apuron's DEED RESTRICTION relative to the perpetual use of the "Yona Property" by the Redemptoris Mater Seminary (RMS) - a seminary limited by its Articles of Incorporation to serve ONLY the formation of priests in the Neocatechumenal Way (Art. III), Archbishop Apuron attaches a DECREE OF DESIGNATION.

In our previous post, we dealt with the fact that the Decree itself begins with a false claim: that RMS is a "major seminary for the Archdiocese of Agana". It is "false" because RMS is constituted ONLY to form priests in the Neocatechumenal Way, which is only one of many movements or "itineraries" in the church.

In this post, we take issue with the use of the word DECREE. By any definition, a DECREE is a public proclamation of an authoritative order. However, there was nothing public about this DECREE, which is why we had to go look for it. 

Archbishop Apuron regularly posts his "authoritative orders" - whether they be Avisos or Decrees - in the U Matuna, the official newspaper for the Archdiocese of Agana. There was NO posting of the DECREE OF DESIGNATION assigning the control of the Yona Property to RMS in perpetuity. And there was no mention of it in any other medium.

Not even the former members of the Archdiocesan Finance Council who were involved in the initial debate over this matter were aware of this so-called "decree". 

Since the initial debate over the matter in 2011, many of Guam's Catholics have wondered about the status of the property. Some, like myself, did an initial investigation of the title, and since it still showed Archbishop Apuron, corporation sole, as the owner, no immediate red flags were raised.

In fact, of course, this was the actual strategy of those who have wrested away this property from the patrimony of the Archdiocese of Agana. By going the way of a Deed Restriction, the neocats (Gennarini, et al.) were able to keep their clandestine manipulation of the people of this archdiocese from plain view. 

While a Deed Restriction is a normally private agreement, a Decree is not. And the Decree which forms the basis for the Deed Restriction is attached to the Deed.

Because the Decree was never "decreed", as would be expected of a normal Catholic prelate, it can be argued by those who wish to SUE to invalidate the Deed Restriction, that Archbishop Apuron's assignment of the property to RMS was a FRAUD.

Guam law requires fraudulent actions involving real estate transaction to be "brought within five years". The Deed Restriction is dated 11/22/11 and it is now 1/7/15. The neocats were almost there. 

However,  in this situation, it can be argued that the statute of limitations can only begin on the "date of discovery" of the harm. And because the "harm" was done to the entire Catholic population of the Archdiocese of Agana, that population will have to be notified. 

So far, the only notice is what has been posted on this blog since yesterday, and a partial mention of the transaction from local media sources. 

So we have time. 

Dear Visitors, because we want to be respectful of your visit and your authority, we will wait to see if you can effect a remedy without our having to pursue a civil suit. However, even if the property can be restored to the Archdiocese of Agana, our trust in Archbishop Apuron, Msgr. David C. Qutigua, and Fr. Adrian Cristobal, CAN NEVER BE.